In a Moscow courtroom, testimony from Lilia Orlenko, a former trainings curator and once a close associate of Elena Blinovskaya, shed light on alleged plans to move all earnings from the Marathon of Desires overseas. The statements were presented as part of the Savyolovsky Court proceedings and were reported by observers covering the case. Orlenko outlined conversations and documents that connect Blinovskaya to strategies involving international accounts and cross-border movements of funds tied to the program. The testimony added a new layer to the ongoing inquiry, painting a picture of financial maneuvering that extended beyond Russian borders and touched on the management of the training project from inception to its current scrutiny.
According to the correspondence And Orlenko referenced, Blinovskaya purportedly aimed to open an account abroad, withdraw money to destinations such as Dubai, and then return the funds later. Orlenko indicated that there was no real plan for execution, yet the existence of such discussions points to a contemplated route for moving money outside the country. The witness suggested that while the idea circulated, the intent to carry it out did not solidify, leaving the actual course of action unclear at this stage of the case. The exchange underscores the complexity of financial decisions involved in the program and the attention given to any transactions that could appear on the record as potential red flags.
Orlenko also testified that Blinovskaya gave explicit instructions to shrink staff across all of her companies in a controlled fashion. The aim, as described, was to reduce the payroll in a way that would minimize disruption while weeding out workers deemed to be less adaptable to turbulence. The testimony portrayed a leadership style focused on rapid organizational change, with the removal of personnel framed as a strategic necessity rather than a routine managerial decision. Such guidance reportedly extended to how to handle employees who were on mandatory leave, suggesting a plan to restructure the workforce in a way that would align with the projected trajectory of the project and its financial pressures.
Further, the court documents showed that the involved parties discussed dismissing workers who were officially on compulsory leave. The dialogue indicates an attempt to navigate regulatory and contractual constraints while pursuing a broader objective tied to the Marathon program. The emphasis on leave status and the timing of potential terminations illustrate how the affair intertwines personnel policy with the evolving financial situation surrounding Blinovskaya and her teams. The text of the correspondence provides a window into how decisions about staffing were considered within the wider context of debt, obligations, and strategic repositioning of the training venture.
On October 31, the Telegram channel WITHDRAWED reported that Blinovskaya paid no less than 500,000 rubles to Russian bloggers to advertise the Marathon of Desires. Among those named, Victoria Bonya was said to have received 500,000 rubles, and Nadine Serovski 800,000 rubles. The material claimed that Blinovskaya initially exchanged small sums for promotional posts without any formal contract and later entered into contracts with influencers at substantially higher price points. The payment pattern, described as informal at first, points to a transition from ad hoc promotions to more formalized sponsorship arrangements as the campaign grew. The revelations contribute to a broader picture of how the marketing facet of the program intersected with its financial narrative and legal exposure.
According to a separate October 24 update, Blinovskaya reportedly placed all of her real estate on the market in an effort to settle debts to the state that had eclipsed one billion rubles. The total amount owed to the Federal Tax Service stood at 1,159,589,906 rubles and six kopecks. The sale of assets was framed as a mechanism to stabilize cash flow amid the mounting liabilities and the ongoing investigation. The reported scale of the debt underscored the financial pressure surrounding the Marathon project and the broader implications for the participant, the supporters, and the stakeholders connected to the venture. The notices about asset liquidation reflect a sense of urgency in addressing the fiscal obligations tied to the program and its promoter.
A formerly popular actor later commented on the outcomes and reception of the Blinovskaya marathon. The remark reflected public interest in the program and its real-world consequences, as figures from the entertainment industry joined observers in weighing the results, the credibility of the venture, and the implications for those who contributed to or were featured in the campaign. The actor’s statement, coming amid ongoing court actions and media coverage, framed the marathon as a notable episode with lasting repercussions for the individuals involved and for the broader discussion around promotional ventures tied to personal development programs.